To the editor: I could have faced a similar fate to Vietnam War draft resister Bob Zaugh. (“A draft resister, a judge and the moment that still binds them after 54 years,” June 14)
Vietnamese patriots won independence from France in 1954. I did not want to fight for the French puppet government that relocated into southern Vietnam during the French retreat — and I did not want to run from my country if it drafted me.
The leader in the south, Ngo Dinh Diem, refused to participate in the agreed-upon 1956 election for all of Vietnam and tried to secede. The Eisenhower administration backed Diem and his attempt to divide Vietnam.
In World War II, a German soldier shot my father through the chest during an ambush, and he lost his right hand to gangrene. He said America trampled in the mud everything he and his generation fought for in Europe and Asia. I was shocked when he offered to support me in Canada during the draft for the Vietnam War.
Those of us born during the French and American wars in Vietnam were the last generation to be drafted before we had the right to vote — votes denied to many minorities in America until 1964. A high draft number changed my fate and life, and that should never happen again unless we suffer a major attack like Pearl Harbor.
Keith Ensminger, Merced, Calif.
..
To the editor: Kudos to Times reporter Doug Smith for his Column One on the draft and Vietnam.
Being the same age as Zaugh, I am a Vietnam veteran. Faced with the draft, as Zaugh was, I ended up being drafted and serving.
I was very conflicted and considered going to Canada. My father was a major in World War II and impressed on me the need to serve. If I had not served it would have breached my relationship with my father.
So, I reluctantly served and later went home to demonstrate against the Vietnam War.
James Borden, Manhattan Beach
..
To the editor: In 1992, 25 years after Zaugh appeared before Judge Harry Pregerson, I clerked for the judge on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Essentially, I assisted him by summarizing a case’s facts and relevant law before the three-judge appeals panel heard the parties’ oral arguments.
In one particular case, I advised the judge that the self-represented appellant (the plaintiff in the lower court) devoted much of her written appeals brief to complaints that she was not provided any time to argue her case during the lower court hearing on her unsuccessful claim.
At oral argument, the appellant stood at the lectern with her husband. When she stumbled presenting her case, her husband started talking. He was neither an attorney nor one of the parties, thus he had no right to be heard.
As the most senior presiding judge, Pregerson quietly asked the other two judges whether they would object to hearing from the husband. When they answered no, he told the appellant and her husband that they could continue. They both spoke several minutes before the other side was given their opportunity.
When I saw the couple walking away in the hallway, I could not know what they thought or felt. However, I witnessed what Zaugh had benefited from 25 years before — a willingness to hear parties argue their cases. Although technically improper, Pregerson would hear from both the named plaintiff and her husband.
Frieda Taylor, Culver City
